Driving Dollars to Effective Programs

Deep in the Rochester City School District’s 373-page proposed budget is a 27-page section of program profiles and budgets. In addition to outlining the expenses for a total of about $62 million in programs, the section makes the bold attempt to say something about what the programs are doing and how well they are doing it.

It’s not uncommon to find in a government or school budget some language about programs and some reference to performance metrics. But the level of detail attempted in this section is unusual and commendable. Each of 27 programs is briefly described, program objectives are listed, measures toward those objectives are reported, and expenses are listed not only by categories but also on a per-student basis.

The effort was clearly taken more seriously by some programs than others. There are a few where the listed objectives were precisely met in each of five years (which rarely happens in the real world, leading us to question their accuracy). Some programs had objectives as simple as increasing participation in the program. Rigorous evaluation was not evident everywhere.

But the principle established is important: that programs must have specific objectives, measure progress toward those objectives and report them in connection with their spending levels. While many programs report not meeting their objectives, others were heartening. Two examples:

• Working across 18 schools, the AVID program, Advancement Via Individual Determination, aims to help prepare historically underrepresented students be ready for college. It reports increasing the proportion of 8^th graders in the program taking algebra from 22% to more than 30% and the share of students taking at least one Advanced Placement course from less than 1% to 17%.
• The Primary Project working in 25 schools to reduce social, emotional and school adjustment problems among students in the earliest grades reports that fewer students are acting out and more are showing self-confidence and an ability to take initiative, according to a measurement tool.

In a year of severe budget strain, both these programs and most of the rest are slated for reductions in district funding for a total of $14.3 million in cuts. Only five programs are scheduled for increases totaling $1.3 million, including Hillside Work-Scholarship Connection, Student and Family Support Centers, and the Parent and Family Involvement programs within the Office of Adult and Career Education Services. One improvement district leaders could make in the future to this part of the budget would be to more clearly explain the rationale for funding changes – why some budgets went up while others were cut.

Also interesting was the very wide variation in the per-student cost of programs, ranging from a little over $100 to more than $20,000. As each program is targeting a different student population and addressing different needs, we wouldn’t expect uniformity. But the most expensive programs, those costing more than $5,000 per student, make up about a third of the overall funding. One hopes district leaders and program staff are using the budget and performance information both to examine ways of increasing effectiveness and also improving efficiency.